Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:14:33.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Place of the Emmaus Story in Luke-Acts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

B. P. Robinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Luke 24. 13–32, we read of two disciples (Cleopas – who may or may not be the Clopas of John 19. 25 – and an unnamed disciple) being joined on the evening of the day of Jesus' Resurrection as they walk to Emmaus (a village of uncertain location, but said by Luke to be about seven miles from Jerusalem) by the Risen Lord, whom they recognise only after they recline at table with him and he breaks bread and distributes it to them (24. 30–31). Their visitor then abruptly disappears (24. 31) and they return to Jerusalem to tell the Eleven (24. 35).

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 1984 , pp. 481 - 497
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1] Fuller, R. H., The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (London, SPCK, 1972), p. 113.Google Scholar

[2] See especially Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke, tr. by Buswell, G. (repr., London, 1969), pp. 60–73Google Scholar; Filson, F. V., ‘The Journey Motif in Luke-Acts’, in Gasque, W. W. and Martin, R. P. (eds.), Apostolic History and the Gospel (Exeter, 1970), pp. 68–77.Google Scholar

[3] Not that the journey motif is confined to this long section: see 8. 1, 9. 3 etc.

[4] Throughout the (circuitous) journey to Jerusalem Jesus is represented as walking ahead of his disciples (9. 55; 14. 25; 23. 28; cf. 7. 9), just as on his last journey, to Golgotha, he walks ahead of Simon of Cyrene, 23. 26.

[5] Schubert, P., ‘The Structure and Significance of Luke 24’, Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Beiheft 21) (Berlin, 1954), pp. 164–86.Google Scholar

[6] Fuller, , Formation, p. 110.Google Scholar

[7] Schubert, , ‘Structure’, p. 179.Google Scholar

[8] Schubert, , ‘Structure’, p. 179.Google Scholar

[9] See Nuttall, G. F., The Moment of Recognition: Luke as Story-Teller (Ethel M. Wood Lecture, London, 1978).Google Scholar

[10] As argued summarily by Goulder, M. D., Type and History in Acts (London, 1964), pp. 44–5 (but without the Emmaus parallels being brought out).Google Scholar

[11] Dupont, J., ‘The Meal at Emmaus’ in Delorme, J., Benoit, P., Boismard, M. E., etc. The Eucharist in the New Testament, tr. Stewart, E. M. (London, 1965), pp. 105–21.Google Scholar

[12] Thompson, G. H. P. (ed.), The Gospel According to Luke (New Clarendon Bible) (Oxford, 1972), ad loc.Google Scholar

[13] Lagrange, M. J. (ed.), Évangile Selon Saint Luc (Paris, 1921), ad loc.Google Scholar; Rackham, R. B., The Acts of the Apostles, An Exposition, 11th ed. (Westminster Commentary) (London, 1930), ad loc.Google Scholar; Caird, G. B. (ed.), Saint Luke. Repr. (Pelican Gospel Commentary) (Harmondsworth, 1965), ad loc.Google Scholar

[14] Alsup, J. E., The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel-Tradition (Calwer Theologische Monographien, 5) (London, 1975), p. 199.Google Scholar

[15] Jeremias, J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, tr. by N. Perrin (New Testament Library) (London, 1966), p. 121.Google Scholar

[16] Jesus' eating needs to be emphasised in the account of the reunion with the Eleven, since the issue is whether what they see may not be a phantom; in the Emmaus story, however, the reality of Jesus' body is not in question, only his identity.

[17] Contrast the version of the episode (whether deriving from the Lucan account or an independent tradition) in ‘Mk’ 16. 12–13, in which it is said that ⋯Φανερώθη ⋯ν ⋯τέρώ μορΦῇ.

[18] Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vol. München, 1922–1961).Google Scholar

[19] Hull, J. M., Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (Studies in Biblical Theology, 2nd Series, 28) (London, 1974), chapt. VI.Google Scholar

[20] Goulder, M. D., The Evangelists'Calendar (London, 1978).Google Scholar

[21] Cadbury, H. J., The Making of Luke-Acts, 2nd ed. (London, 1958).Google Scholar

[22] συναλιζόμενος may, however, mean no more than ‘while he was in their company’ (NEB).

[23] Williams, C. S. C., A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 2nd ed., repr. (London, 1964), p. 72.Google Scholar

[24] The bread-petition in the Lucan version of the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11. 3) reads τ⋯ν ἅρτον ⋯μω¯ν τ⋯ν ⋯πιούσιον δίδου ⋯μῑν τ⋯ καθ' ⋯μέραν. Lohmeyer, E., The Lord's Prayer, tr. by J. Bowden (London, 1965), shows that Matthew's version of this petition (with δός and σήμερον) is best interpreted as meaning that ‘the bread … is earthly bread, the bread of the poor and needy, and at the same time, because of the eschatological hour in which it is prayed for and eaten, it is the future bread in this today, the bread of the elect and the blessed’ (p. 157). I am not persuaded by his argument, later in the book, for taking this Lucan version in a different sense: ‘if Luke still understood the bread as eschatological bread, it would be impossible to pray for it over a series of days. The eschatological bread is final, once for all, and before it the days which are still to come fuse into a single “today”. But if that is so, this Lucan petition speaks of the bread which we need for the nourishment of our body’ (p. 251). Given the importance of the notion of the bread of the Kingdom in Luke (e.g. in the key text, 14. 15), it seems far more natural to suppose that Luke, like Matthew, takes ⋯πιούσιος in an eschatological sense. I cannot see why Luke should not have thought of the eschatological tomorrow as anticipated in a series of todays; I am in fact sure that he did. Lohmeyer's objection that in Luke ⋯πιούσιος ‘ can no longer mean “future” here because the closing phrase “day by day” already embraces the future course of days’ (p. 250) is unconvincing: ‘day by day’ has a future reference only so far as the present aeon is concerned, it does not take in the eschatological day.Google Scholar

[25] Conzelmann, , Theology, pp. 124–5Google Scholar: there is ‘an analogy between the time of Jesus and the future time of salvation … the Kingdom has appeared in Christ’; cf. p. 56 (on Luke 9. 27): ‘Luke knows that nobody of Jesus’ generation has experienced the Parousia, but it is granted to them to see the Kingdom': Conzelmann elsewhere, however, plays down the idea of the presence of the Kingdom in the ministry of Jesus, speaking of only ‘signs’or ‘foreshadowings’of it (pp. 122; 117 n. 2). This fails to do justice to texts such as Luke 11. 20, 16. 16, 17. 21, 19. 38, which speak of it as already present. In Luke (as in the teaching of Jesus himself?) it is both a present and an imminent reality. See Marshall, I. H., Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter, 1970), pp. 89–91, 128–36.Google Scholar

[26] It is certainly possible, if the Emmaus story is historical, that the unnamed disciple was in fact one of the Twelve, but it is most unlikely that Luke thinks of him as such: else why should he name the obscure Cleopas and not his more illustrious companion?

[27] So, for example, Benoit, P., The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, tr. by B. Weather-head (London, 1969)Google Scholar, and Betz, H. D., ‘The Origin and Nature of Christian Faith According to the Emmaus Legend (Luke xxiv 13–32)’, Interpretation 23 (1969), pp. 32–46. Implied in Luke's account, Betz thinks, is the conviction that Jesus ‘is present in the act of the Christian interpretation of the Scriptures and in the act of the Lord's Supper’ (p. 38).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[28] Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition, tr. by J. Marsh (Oxford, 1963), p. 266 n. 1.Google Scholar

[29] Jeremias, , Eucharistic Words, pp. 139–59.Google Scholar

[30] See Rese, M., ‘Zur Problematik von Kurz- und Langtext in Luk. xxii 17ff’, New Testament Studies 22 (1975), pp. 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[31] Thus Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (The New International Greek Testament Commentary) (Exeter, 1978), p. 800: the Short Text may have arisen through some ‘scribal idiosyncrasy’!Google Scholar

[32] Chadwick, H. (‘The Shorter Text of Luke xxii 15–20’, Harvard Theological Review 50 (1957), pp. 249–58)CrossRefGoogle Scholar long ago suggested that Luke 22. 19 is a ‘Lucan’ interpolation. My view differs from his in that he thinks that πάσχα in Luke's source meant paschal meal and therefore included reference to the unleavened bread but that Luke did not realise this and therefore felt constrained to add 19a from Mark.

[33] See Jeremias, , Eucharistic Words, pp. 122–3, 216–17.Google Scholar

[34] See Buckler, F. W., The Epiphany of the Cross (Cambridge, 1926), for the idea that the Last Supper functioned as a sort of darbār: in the orient taking part in the kingly meal, like wearing the ‘robes of honour’ or offering the symbolic oath of allegiance, is a way of confessing the supremacy of the king and one's dependence on, and loyalty to, him. (I am grateful to Mr. T. R. Young for drawing my attention to Buckler's neglected little book.)Google Scholar

[35] Goulder, , Type, pp. 223 f., thinks that Luke means that less than half of Jewry came to Jesus (‘since twelve thousands would represent the full twelve tribes, the five thousands fitly symbolise five tribes’, p. 223). The twelve baskets of crumbs represent twelve tribes of gentiles (corresponding to the twelve gentile nations mentioned at Pentecost – if one takes the reference to Cretans and Arabs to be an interpolation!): pp. 152–8.Google Scholar

[36] Goulder, , Type, p. 225.Google Scholar

[37] Drury, J., Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel (London, 1976), has already pointed to a significance in Luke's collocation of the Feeding and the Confession: ‘What more appropriate to a gospel containing the Emmaus story than that the Christ should be recognised immediately after the breaking of bread?’ (p. 97).Google Scholar

[38] Fitzmyer, J. A., (‘The Composition of Luke, Chapter 9’ in Talbert, C. H. (ed.), Perspectives on Luke-Acts, Edinburgh, 1978, pp. 139–52) see a different significance in the Herod episode: the sections that follow are designed to supply an answer to Herod's question, ‘Who is this.…?’ This may well be correct, but it is not incompatible with the explanation I have offered. My understanding of the passage may indeed help to solve what Fitzmyer confesses (p. 151 n. 42) that he finds ‘a nagging problem’: why is it Herod who is brought on to ask this question?Google Scholar

[39] Marshall, , Luke: Historian and Theologian, p. 205.Google ScholarMenoud, P. H. (‘Les Actes des Apôtres et l'Eucharistie’, Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 33 (1953), pp. 21–36 likewise sees as Eucharistic all the breakings of bread mentioned in Acts; he further sees a Eucharistic reference in the‘table’of 16. 34.Google Scholar

[40] Jeremias, , Eucharistic Words, pp. 119, 120.Google Scholar

[41] Haenchen, E. (ed.), The Acts of the Apostles, tr. by B. Noble and G. Shinn, tr. revised by R. McL. Wilson (Oxford, 1971), ad loc.Google Scholar

[42] Jeremias and Bauernfeind believe that the four terms in 2. 42 represent four elements in the early Christian liturgy (instruction; contribution of offerings; consumption of the Eucharistic species; prayers). Thus Luke, having spoken of the baptism of the Three Thousand in 2. 41 proceeds now in the next verse to speak of their beginning to participate in the Eucharist. It seems more likely, however, that four separate activities are here being summarised, each of which is picked up in the verses that follow (the influence of the apostles, 2. 43; the community of faith and goods, 2. 44–45; daily visits to the temple for prayer, 2. 46; the daily breaking of bread in private houses, 2. 46. This interpretation is tentatively mentioned by Marshall, , Luke Historian and Theologian, p. 205.Google Scholar

[43] Dupont, , ‘The Meal.…’, p. 118, who takes ‘the breaking of bread’ here (and throughout Acts) to mean the Eucharist, argues in support of this view that the solemnity of the occasion is underlined by the number of lamps burning' (20. 8). This inference seems to me to be no less fanciful than Haenchen's suggestion of an apologetic intent (‘perhaps here the aspersion recorded later [Minucius Felix Octavius 9; Tertullian Apol. 8 f.] against the Christian cult meal (promiscuity in the dark) is already presupposed and combatted’ Acts, ad loc.). Neither the ritual of lamps nor the accusation of promiscuity among Christians is attested as early as the date of Acts.Google Scholar

[44] Haenchen, Acts, ad loc.

[45] Rackham, R. B., The Acts of the Apostles, An Exposition, 11th ed., (Westminster Commentary) (London, 1930), p. 40.Google Scholar

[46] After ἣρξατο ⋯σθίειν the Western Text adds ⋯πιδιδοὺςύκα⋯ύ⋯μῑν. Although it is true that ‘the riddle of the Western Text in Acts has not yet been solved’ (Klijn, A. F. J., A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts, Utrecht, 1949, p. 64) and it cannot be presumed that all Western readings are secondary, in this instance it is hard to see why the words ‘distributing also to us’ if original should have dropped out. It is far more likely that they are an insertion by a scribe who thought that it would have been discourteous of Paul to feed only himself, ignoring his Christian companions.Google Scholar

[47] Rackham, , Acts, p. 40.Google ScholarNeil, W. (ed.), The Acts of the Apostles (New Century Bible) (London, 1973), ‘guided by the Western Text’ thinks ‘of Paul, Luke and Aristarchus, at least, treating this as no ordinary meal, but as one with hallowed sacramental significance’ (ad loc.). The suggestion that the pagans present ate an ordinary meal while the believers celebrated a sacrament is awkward. In any case, the Western reading is probably not original, and is not motivated by a sacramental understanding of the passage (see previous note).Google Scholar

[48] Goulder, , Type, p. 39.Google Scholar

[49] Acts here, in fact, as elsewhere contains multiple echoes of material in the Third Gospel. Not only does the shipwreck recall Jesus' death, it also recalls the great storm of Luke 8 (in Luke 8 Jesus rescues those who sail with him, 8. 23, as it is predicted in Acts 27. 34 that Paul will do, and as he actually does in 27. 44; again, both Jesus and Paul comment on the need for faith). Similarly the breaking of the bread quite possibly recalls not only the Last Supper but also the Feeding of the Five Thousand (see the next note but one).

[50] Schubert, , ‘The Structure …’, p. 185.Google Scholar

[52] Reicke, B., ‘Die Mahlzeit mil Paulus auf den Wellen des Mittelmeers, Act. xxvii 33–38‘, Theologische Zeitschrift 4 (1948), pp. 401–10Google Scholar, argues that the Acts 27 story is further related to the Last Supper through its similarity to the account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, which he takes (as I do) to be a clear prefiguration of the Last Supper: Acts contains at the end of the narrative a statement of the large number (viz. 276, according to the most likely reading) of those who had participated, just as Matt. 14. 21 and Mk. 6. 44 do. Reicke may well be correct to see a reference to the Feeding miracle, but if so it is remarkable that in Luke's own account of the Feeding miracle the number of the participants is given before the Feeding takes place (so Jn. 6. 10).

Reicke's claim hat the number 276 is deliberately chosen as being the triangular number of 23 (i.e. 276 = 1 + 2 + 3 … + 23) would be more impressive if there were something specially appropriate in the number 23. Attempts to explain the 153 fishes of Jn. 21. 11 as the triangular number of 17 are open to the same objection: why 17? (See, however, Goulder, , Type, pp. 223–30 for an ingenious, perhaps an over-ingenious, attempt to find a symbolic significance in 23).Google Scholar

Reicke further sees in the story a connection with the Lord's Supper of the apostolic church. Paul before celebrating the meal received from an angel in a vision the message κεχάρισταί σοι ⋯ θε⋯ς πάντας τοὺς πλέοντας μετ⋯ σοῡ (27. 24), words which, Reicke thinks, when taken together with Paul's own words about the meal, τοῡτο Υ⋯ρ πρ⋯ς τ⋯ς σωτηρίας ὺπάρχει (27. 34), suggest that the meal functions symbolically to signify that Paul as a θεῑος ἃνηρ wins men in the Spirit to Christ and feeds them on the Lord's Supper. This is to assume that Luke made a connection between the Last Supper and the early church's Lord's Supper that we have failed to find evidence for his having made.